This thread is interesting. It's full of completely disingenuous partisans saying that what Obama is doing is terrible, while they were in full-throated support of GWB doing it.

There is also a ton of people who were consistently against this when GWB is doing it, and now hyperventilating about Obama doing it.

There's also a bunch of people calling all of the people supporting these actions now simply because Obama is doing it, rightly, a bunch of partisan asshats. Despite there being very few people doing what they are decrying.

Then there are the people saying that it doesn't matter what we think, this was inevitable and has been happening for a very long time.

Strangely, very few people saying "waitaminit"--what has been described isn't really all that different from what we knew was going on, under FISA warrants, since, well, 1978. The only thing that has changed is the methods and the types of communications. And a lot of our understanding of what the new and outrageous actions we are railing against is based on misunderstandings or miscommunications of what has been revealed.

Now, I'm happy to rail against the USA PATRIOT act, or even the secrecy of the FISA court. But so far what has been revealed has pretty much been common knowledge or at least easily guessed at. Nadler, in the link above, even recants his statement about warrantless wiretapping of US citizens.

I think there is a discussion to be had about the role of metadata of US communications and a whole shiatpile of these spying stuff, but let's keep facts straight.

Proximuscentauri:Stop toeing your party lines, you goddamned idiots. This problem should be evidence enough that the discussion should evolve beyond 'Democrat vs. Republican'.

Build new parties that better reflect the ideas of honest and noble citizens of the United States. Taking the comments I've seen littering the pages of all the news sources covering this problem, maybe there aren't any honest and noble US citizens left. Regardless, we have to work together to oust the current two-party system or we will all remain slaves to it.

Stop regurgitating the idiocy from your failed political parties.

Restore the Republic.

What you fail to see is tgat americans, for the most part, supported the patriot act. You can call partisanship all you want, but in a republic candidates moving together on anti-terrorism is the appropriate response to the bulk of americans supported it.

The only reason fark looks like this isn't the case is because the fark liberals are more liberal than average, the internet has more libertarians by far than the population, and the conservative narrative is to browbeat Obama regardless of whether or not they would support the actions in question.

You will note the majority of liberals here are not defending any nsa warrantless listening in, and have been calling for the repeal of the patriot act for a decade.

All posts like yours are is a different form of partisanship in which you step outside reality and yell at everyone who does not.

tenpoundsofcheese:udhq: tenpoundsofcheese: udhq: Can somebody please explain why this is a news story? This practice has been common knowledge for 7 years.

It smells to me like nothing more than a coordinated display of disingenuous, partisan faux-outrage.

SureGo listen to Obama's comments a week ago about this issue

I have.

He has significantly scaled back NSA surveillance from it's height under the Bush administration, has declassified an unprecedented number of documents about the program, and is working with congress to set up stronger oversight mechanisms.

And yet no one can give me a satisfactory answer as to where this "Obama is big brother" media hype is coming from. It sure as heck isn't coming from reality.

Start with the New York Times.

Do you think Obama's comment from last week represents reality?

Where is citation that NSA surveillance has been scaled back?

At one point Bush was unapolagetically wiretapping US communications in defiance of the FISA requirements.

OgreMagi:I'm waiting for the fark sock puppets to stop sucking Obama's peener long enough to admit they were wrong.

I wont' hold my breath.

Popcorn Johnny:This is in no way Obama's fault, the President is only to blame for crap like this when a Republican is in the White House.

When you and your ilk stop fellating each other over some perceived partisan coup, maybe ya'll can pull your heads out of your asses long enough to join what every right, left, center and other shiatizen is doing which is to figure out how to raise enough of concerted effort to put an end to this.

I voted for Obama in '08. Against Romney in '12. I'm super libby. And at this point I don't give a fark who started it, I just care about ending it. Gov't shouldn't have this power whomever is in charge. So give yourself a big pat on the back for whatever imaginary 'gotcha' you think you have and MOVE THE FARK ON TO HELPING INSTEAD OF JACKING OFF INTO THE POLITICAL WIND.

1. When did this particular policy start? and2. The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

1) It started in the 1960s.

No it didn't. I couldn't give two farks about interception of foreign calls. I'm interested in knowing when the interception and recording of domestic calls without a court order (or exigent circumstances with the intention of seeking a post-interception warrant) began. We're being told that it's going on now. I want to know if it was going on during Bush's presidency or if it's a policy this jerkoff started.

SunsetLament:DrPainMD: SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1. When did this particular policy start? and2. The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

1) It started in the 1960s.

No it didn't. I couldn't give two farks about interception of foreign calls. I'm interested in knowing when the interception and recording of domestic calls without a court order (or exigent circumstances with the intention of seeking a post-interception warrant) began. We're being told that it's going on now. I want to know if it was going on during Bush's presidency or if it's a policy this jerkoff started.

Smackledorfer:Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.

Actually, retard, I said that if I didn't like any of the third party nominees, I would write in someone who I thought would do a good job rather than support the two established party choices.

SunsetLament:DrPainMD: SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1. When did this particular policy start? and2. The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

1) It started in the 1960s.

No it didn't. I couldn't give two farks about interception of foreign calls. I'm interested in knowing when the interception and recording of domestic calls without a court order (or exigent circumstances with the intention of seeking a post-interception warrant) began. We're being told that it's going on now. I want to know if it was going on during Bush's presidency or if it's a policy this jerkoff started.

You're right. Nothing like this happened pre-2009. This was just a janitors closet.

BullBearMS:Smackledorfer: Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.

Actually, retard, I said that if I didn't like any of the third party nominees, I would write in someone who I thought would do a good job rather than support the two established party choices.

However, Jill Stein was a perfectly good nominee.

You specifically said your plan was to write-in elizabeth warren, and it took a couple dozen insistent challenges to you before you would ever drop down to the rest of our positions that we had a candidate in mind. You are specifically vague about such things so that you can stay removed enough from the discussion that you can snipe at anyone else's voting record from the shadows while never having to suffer an arrow yourself.

BullBearMS:Smackledorfer: His personal politics are whatever it takes to biatch about Obama

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 441x311]

It's OK when he lies to us!

I won't waste the time linking to my comments in this thread, but yet again you accuse me of saying the opposite of what I have said, which is that it is NOT OK when he lies to us, and that I do not support 4th amendment infringements. Nice work showing your complete dishonesty yet again. You are ten times the liar you accuse of Obama of being. If you have to outright lie about what other people say in order to biatch about them, you've got nothing and you know it.

I don't think we're gonna see a whole lot of that... I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal... and this practice is absolutely indefensible... IDGAF whether we're talking about the people who voted for it like Peter King and Diane Feinstein, or the people who implemented it like Bush and Obama... it's an absolutely terrible practice that violates everything the fourth amendment is all about, and to some extent even the first. These people who would use the losses of 9/11 as a rationale for torching our constitution have no place in government, not a farking one of them, regardless of party.

None of the real liberals are doing anything but condemning this in the strongest possible terms.

It's the Democratic party shills who are but, but, but Bushing about it and making other lame ass excuses.

Obama promised to end this.

He lied.

It's indefensible.

So are you "real liberals™" gonna vote against the bums that did this shiat in '14 and '16 or are you gonna vote for them anyways and say"well our guys did shiat that makes watergate look beneign, but I cant risk letting the republicans win by voting 3rd party"?

I voted 3rd party in the 08, 10, and 12 cycles because of the shenanigans of the Schrub administration, I wasnt gonna vote dem but as a true conservative the GOP had went too far to the dark side for me to follow.

Well, obviously I won't be voting for Obama. Neither of my Senators was in the house or senate when the PATRIOT Act Passed... my representative voted for him, but I've voted against that a-hole every chance I've gotten for years, but for a different reason... as for third parties, I'll continue to evaluate everyone on his or her own merit... but being part of a third party doesn't grant you automatic trust... the reality is that I think they're all a bunch of dirty liars who are bought and paid for too.

Ahh, the perfect slave ...

I have no idea how you got the "It's not illegal when we do it" from me saying "it's an absolutely terrible practice that violates everything the fourth amendment is all about, and to some extent even the first. These people who would use the losses of 9/11 as a rationale for torching our constitution have no place in government, not a farking one of them, regardless of party. " I seriously don't know whether you're trolling, or just the dumbest farker on the face of the earth.

SunsetLament:We don't know that the Republicans did it, dipshiat. I'd like to know; that's the entire point of my statement - "the relevant question is who started it?" For all we know, Bush was following the Patriot Act as written. It's also very possible that he wasn't. I want to know the truth; not the liberal "I really really want it to be true, so it is" fan fiction.

However, I know one thing ... it's going on right now and Bush isn't the jerkoff in the oval office.

SunsetLament:I was in the Justice Department under Bush and I assure this is fiction.

BullBearMS:firefly212: Oldiron_79: Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.

I don't think we're gonna see a whole lot of that... I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal... and this practice is absolutely indefensible... IDGAF whether we're talking about the people who voted for it like Peter King and Diane Feinstein, or the people who implemented it like Bush and Obama... it's an absolutely terrible practice that violates everything the fourth amendment is all about, and to some extent even the first. These people who would use the losses of 9/11 as a rationale for torching our constitution have no place in government, not a farking one of them, regardless of party.

None of the real liberals are doing anything but condemning this in the strongest possible terms.

It's the Democratic party shills who are but, but, but Bushing about it and making other lame ass excuses.

Obama promised to end this.

He lied.

It's indefensible.

It is indefensible... all else being equal, I think it should be impeachable... but the house/senate are never gonna do that considering how many big government republicans and democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act, and even now that they understand that it's domestic spying, are still sticking up for it (Peter King and Diane Feinstein are strange bedfellows on this). I want all the farkers who voted for this or worked to implement this illegal program out of government for good.

BullBearMS:Smackledorfer: Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.

Actually, retard, I said that if I didn't like any of the third party nominees, I would write in someone who I thought would do a good job rather than support the two established party choices.

However, Jill Stein was a perfectly good nominee.

I voted for Jill Stein because I liked her platform and I wanted the Greens to qualify for additional funding in the future to get these kinds of ideas toward public policy more exposure. However, I admit that I would have voted for Obama if I thought Romney had a chance of winning my state. That's probably the case for most people with progressive political leanings: they don't care for most of the Democratic party platform but the thought of the Republican candidate winning prevents them from voting for a third party candidate with a platform closer to their own views. In my naive optimistic dreams, the Republican party will eventually collapse under its own insanity and then the progressives will either leave the Democratic party or be less willing to compromise within it.

Skleenar:This thread is interesting. It's full of completely disingenuous partisans saying that what Obama is doing is terrible, while they were in full-throated support of GWB doing it.

There is also a ton of people who were consistently against this when GWB is doing it, and now hyperventilating about Obama doing it.

There's also a bunch of people calling all of the people supporting these actions now simply because Obama is doing it, rightly, a bunch of partisan asshats. Despite there being very few people doing what they are decrying.

Then there are the people saying that it doesn't matter what we think, this was inevitable and has been happening for a very long time.

Strangely, very few people saying "waitaminit"--what has been described isn't really all that different from what we knew was going on, under FISA warrants, since, well, 1978. The only thing that has changed is the methods and the types of communications. And a lot of our understanding of what the new and outrageous actions we are railing against is based on misunderstandings or miscommunications of what has been revealed.

Now, I'm happy to rail against the USA PATRIOT act, or even the secrecy of the FISA court. But so far what has been revealed has pretty much been common knowledge or at least easily guessed at. Nadler, in the link above, even recants his statement about warrantless wiretapping of US citizens.

I think there is a discussion to be had about the role of metadata of US communications and a whole shiatpile of these spying stuff, but let's keep facts straight.

At least until more is revealed.

Dude, we so totally need you around here during this shiat. I know, you probably have your reasons.

Walter Paisley:BullBearMS: Smackledorfer: Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.

Actually, retard, I said that if I didn't like any of the third party nominees, I would write in someone who I thought would do a good job rather than support the two established party choices.

However, Jill Stein was a perfectly good nominee.

I voted for Jill Stein because I liked her platform and I wanted the Greens to qualify for additional funding in the future to get these kinds of ideas toward public policy more exposure. However, I admit that I would have voted for Obama if I thought Romney had a chance of winning my state. That's probably the case for most people with progressive political leanings: they don't care for most of the Democratic party platform but the thought of the Republican candidate winning prevents them from voting for a third party candidate with a platform closer to their own views. In my naive optimistic dreams, the Republican party will eventually collapse under its own insanity and then the progressives will either leave the Democratic party or be less willing to compromise within it.

The thing of it is, it doesn't matter how progressive you, me, or other people on fark are. It wouldn't matter how many perfect, in my mind, candidates ran for office. If the democrats can't even get elected without pulling to the right on issues, there is no way a splinter group would have the support necessary to win. Even in a runoff system where no game theory pushed anyone towards the major parties, most of our states are too conservative, socially, fiscally, and on security, to ever go for the heavy progressive option. That is just reality, and unless you change the minds and opinions of all of those voters, people like Bullbearms popping onto the internet and blaming everything on the libs who voted Obama is a pointless exercise.

The idea that, after watching all the people cast votes for candidates that are the opposite of progressive, seeing that the democrats aren't yet liberal enough to pull off a majority in congress, it requires a complete disengage from reality to believe a far left party stands a chance at taking power. Are they hindered by people like me who more often than not vote for the Democrat over the greater of two evils? Sure. But would they succeed even if we all cast our votes that way? Not a chance. A large portion of this country is centrist, and a large portion is staunchly conservative.

Halli:SunsetLament: DrPainMD: SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1. When did this particular policy start? and2. The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

1) It started in the 1960s.

No it didn't. I couldn't give two farks about interception of foreign calls. I'm interested in knowing when the interception and recording of domestic calls without a court order (or exigent circumstances with the intention of seeking a post-interception warrant) began. We're being told that it's going on now. I want to know if it was going on during Bush's presidency or if it's a policy this jerkoff started.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does- no t-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

BullBearMS:Walter Paisley: the progressives will either leave the Democratic party or be less willing to compromise within it.

Rachel Maddow kind of nailed this during the last election cycle.

The only thing that will stop the Democrats from farking over their base is if we stop supporting them when they do it.

Rachel Maddow last night issued a very harsh and eloquent denunciation of Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a military commission at Guantanamo rather than a real court. At the end of her monologue, Maddow focused on the contrast between how the Republicans treat their base and how Democrats treat theirs, specifically emphasizing that the White House announced this decision on the same day it kicked off Obama's re-election bid. About that point, Rachel said this:

A Democratic President kicks his base in the teeth on something as fundamental as civil liberties - he puts the nail in the coffin of a civil liberties promise he made on his first full day in office - and he does it on the first day of his re-election effort. And Beltway reaction to that is. . . huh, good move. That's the difference between Republican politics and Democratic politics. The Republicans may not love their base, but they fear them and play to them. The Democratic Party institutional structures of D.C., and the Beltway press in particular, not only hate the Democratic base - they think it's good politics for Democratic politicians to kick that base publicly whenever possible.

Only the base itself will ever change that.

Romney said one thing nearly correctly when he said a % would never vote for him and his target audience was those that might.But the usual egotastical tunnel vision of the type limited his grasp.The statement could be made by any politician, the target of all politicians is the 50% of below average intelligence persons that buy into the Partisan Theatre.

Smackledorfer:Walter Paisley: BullBearMS: Smackledorfer: Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.

Actually, retard, I said that if I didn't like any of the third party nominees, I would write in someone who I thought would do a good job rather than support the two established party choices.

However, Jill Stein was a perfectly good nominee.

I voted for Jill Stein because I liked her platform and I wanted the Greens to qualify for additional funding in the future to get these kinds of ideas toward public policy more exposure. However, I admit that I would have voted for Obama if I thought Romney had a chance of winning my state. That's probably the case for most people with progressive political leanings: they don't care for most of the Democratic party platform but the thought of the Republican candidate winning prevents them from voting for a third party candidate with a platform closer to their own views. In my naive optimistic dreams, the Republican party will eventually collapse under its own insanity and then the progressives will either leave the Democratic party or be less willing to compromise within it.

The thing of it is, it doesn't matter how progressive you, me, or other people on fark are. It wouldn't matter how many perfect, in my mind, candidates ran for office. If the democrats can't even get elected without pulling to the right on issues, there is no way a splinter group would have the support necessary to win. Even in a runoff system where no game theory pushed anyone towards the major parties, most of our states are too conservative, socially, fiscally, and on security, to ever go for the heavy progressive option. That is just reality, and unless you change the minds and opinions of all of those voters, people like Bullbearms popping onto the internet and blaming everything on the libs wh ...

You are making some good points, but I do think the Overton window of American politics will shift somewhat to the left of where it currently is over time, even if it is only to the center. Even in a mostly centrist political climate, progressives might have an actual presence in the political discourse and center-left policy might be a possibility. A large portion of heavily conservative voters are fairly old and their influence won't be as pronounced in 20 or 30 years. It is possible than some of Gen X and Millennial voters will become more conservative during that time, but probably not in high enough numbers to maintain the current proportion of political inclinations.

At the very least, a portion of social conservatism seems to be dying out. The media seemed to be shocked at the legislation legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington state, but I think in some cases politicians seem to believe the country is more conservative than it actually is, at least on social issues.

Biological Ali:Halli: SunsetLament: DrPainMD: SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1. When did this particular policy start? and2. The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

1) It started in the 1960s.

No it didn't. I couldn't give two farks about interception of foreign calls. I'm interested in knowing when the interception and recording of domestic calls without a court order (or exigent circumstances with the intention of seeking a post-interception warrant) began. We're being told that it's going on now. I want to know if it was going on during Bush's presidency or if it's a policy this jerkoff started.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does- no t-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

Proximuscentauri:Stop toeing your party lines, you goddamned idiots. This problem should be evidence enough that the discussion should evolve beyond 'Democrat vs. Republican'.

Build new parties that better reflect the ideas of honest and noble citizens of the United States. Taking the comments I've seen littering the pages of all the news sources covering this problem, maybe there aren't any honest and noble US citizens left. Regardless, we have to work together to oust the current two-party system or we will all remain slaves to it.

Stop regurgitating the idiocy from your failed political parties.

Restore the Republic.

I have a better idea. Each election cycle, the candidates running must come up with their OWN party. No more democrats. No more republicans. The lines are gone, and each cycle you have a new party to choose from built upon that candidates personal views/beliefs/track record. We can still nail it down to two of these parties through primaries, but lets get some fresh ideas by that point and time.

This approach keeps party beliefs from getting stale, encourages thought and discussion, and might result in cool party names.

There is my proposal, love it or leave it. If you need me, I will be preparing for the '16 primary, and printing up my "Harleys, Hookers, 'n Hard Liquor" signs.

Walter Paisley:You are making some good points, but I do think the Overton window of American politics will shift somewhat to the left of where it currently is over time, even if it is only to the center. Even in a mostly centrist political climate, progressives might have an actual presence in the political discourse and center-left policy might be a possibility. A large portion of heavily conservative voters are fairly old and their influence won't be as pronounced in 20 or 30 years. It is possible than some of Gen X and Millennial voters will become more conservative during that time, but probably not in high enough numbers to maintain the current proportion of political inclinations.

At the very least, a portion of social conservatism seems to be dying out. The media seemed to be shocked at the legislation legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington state, but I think in some cases politicians seem to believe the country is more conservative than it actually is, at least on social issues.

Agreed. I think this shift will occur whether or not we all jump in third parties. It would be less possible for candidates sitting on the dying end of things to deny it if we had a runoff system though. You don't get a more accurate polling than a full run-off system, and it might even encourage many of the non-voters out there to get off their ass and show up.

italie:Proximuscentauri: Stop toeing your party lines, you goddamned idiots. This problem should be evidence enough that the discussion should evolve beyond 'Democrat vs. Republican'.

Build new parties that better reflect the ideas of honest and noble citizens of the United States. Taking the comments I've seen littering the pages of all the news sources covering this problem, maybe there aren't any honest and noble US citizens left. Regardless, we have to work together to oust the current two-party system or we will all remain slaves to it.

Stop regurgitating the idiocy from your failed political parties.

Restore the Republic.

I have a better idea. Each election cycle, the candidates running must come up with their OWN party. No more democrats. No more republicans. The lines are gone, and each cycle you have a new party to choose from built upon that candidates personal views/beliefs/track record. We can still nail it down to two of these parties through primaries, but lets get some fresh ideas by that point and time.

This approach keeps party beliefs from getting stale, encourages thought and discussion, and might result in cool party names.

There is my proposal, love it or leave it. If you need me, I will be preparing for the '16 primary, and printing up my "Harleys, Hookers, 'n Hard Liquor" signs.

Cute, but why not be more realistic and call for a parliamentary system instead?

Mrtraveler01:SunsetLament: DrPainMD: SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1. When did this particular policy start? and2. The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

1) It started in the 1960s.

No it didn't. I couldn't give two farks about interception of foreign calls. I'm interested in knowing when the interception and recording of domestic calls without a court order (or exigent circumstances with the intention of seeking a post-interception warrant) began. We're being told that it's going on now. I want to know if it was going on during Bush's presidency or if it's a policy this jerkoff started.

You're right. Nothing like this happened pre-2009. This was just a janitors closet.

It takes a special kind of stupid to read my last sentence and then to follow it up with your comment.

italie:Proximuscentauri: Stop toeing your party lines, you goddamned idiots. This problem should be evidence enough that the discussion should evolve beyond 'Democrat vs. Republican'.

Build new parties that better reflect the ideas of honest and noble citizens of the United States. Taking the comments I've seen littering the pages of all the news sources covering this problem, maybe there aren't any honest and noble US citizens left. Regardless, we have to work together to oust the current two-party system or we will all remain slaves to it.

Stop regurgitating the idiocy from your failed political parties.

Restore the Republic.

I have a better idea.

How about you stop whining just because "your guy" didn't win.We get it, he's black.Stop your veiled racism.

SunsetLament:Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: DrPainMD: SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1. When did this particular policy start? and2. The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

1) It started in the 1960s.

No it didn't. I couldn't give two farks about interception of foreign calls. I'm interested in knowing when the interception and recording of domestic calls without a court order (or exigent circumstances with the intention of seeking a post-interception warrant) began. We're being told that it's going on now. I want to know if it was going on during Bush's presidency or if it's a policy this jerkoff started.

You're right. Nothing like this happened pre-2009. This was just a janitors closet.

It takes a special kind of stupid to read my last sentence and then to follow it up with your comment.

Some people here are very, very special people.They do that a lot.They are very, very special.

I'm willing to have a serious discussion about the level of government surveillance that is appropriate, but unfortunately that's not what's happening here. The people who have become suddenly outraged about government surveillance in the last 2 weeks aren't interested in having this adult discussion, to them, this is just another stick to beat the other side with.

Case in point, after two weeks of media drive poutrage, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that any surveillance programs have expanded in size or scope under Obama.

udhq:I'm willing to have a serious discussion about the level of government surveillance that is appropriate, but unfortunately that's not what's happening here. The people who have become suddenly outraged about government surveillance in the last 2 weeks aren't interested in having this adult discussion, to them, this is just another stick to beat the other side with.

Case in point, after two weeks of media drive poutrage, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that any surveillance programs have expanded in size or scope under Obama.

You mean other than the NSA's own powerpoint slide that shows the expansion of the program since 2007?

I'll start caring about what the "both sides are bad so vote third party" people have to say when they stop being stupid. Deal?

This is a horrid list of failures. Saying "YAY!" after each one does NOT make them victories. I'll bet there's an almost identical list somewhere on the RNC site, titled as "Reasons to Impeach." And that list is closer to correct than yours is.